May 2008

Sorry I Confused You

In reading the comments to my post yesterday, I see that many of you were confused about my positions. Evidently all of you are brilliant, so I assume the problem is on my end. With your indulgence, allow me to clarify.

1. I am not happy that Hitler killed your relatives.2. I do not support the killing of Americans3. I do not support nuclear annihilation of Israel4. I do not support the stoning of virgins in Iran5. I believe the holocaust happened

I also don’t argue there’s a moral equivalence between Iran and the United States, or Israel and the Palestinians, or anyone and anyone else. Groups pursue their own perceived self interest. Arguing relative morality is an idiot’s game. Pointing out similarities in policies, and shaking the box, is good clean fun.

Next, I believe that if Iran is in fact helping Iraqi insurgents harm Americans, it’s an act of war, and a legitimate reason for attacking Iran in some fashion. That doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests of the United States to do so, but I would view it as legitimate.

Likewise, if the Iranians really are developing a nuclear weapon with the intent of using it on Israel, and there was some way to confirm that other than suspicious translations of speeches, then attacking Iran makes perfect sense, and I would support it completely. My problem is that I keep seeing patterns:

I believe there’s a good chance Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans, simply because it might be in their perceived best interest to do that. But I’d be an idiot to believe it simply because the government told the media it was true and the media told me. You can only fool me five or six dozen times before I start getting suspicious.

I think Iran would be foolish to let matters in Iraq unfold without trying to influence it. It’s in their best interest to meddle. That doesn’t mean I support it. I prefer they didn’t. But it’s not a realistic option. I presume the dark forces on our side are making sure any Iranian offenses are being met with consequences, and I’m all for that.

I also support Israel’s actions in pursuit of its self-interest. I’d be a hypocrite to do otherwise, since I also support the United States, despite what it did to the Native Americans a few hundred years ago. At some point you have to release on the past and accept the present realities. Israel won. It isn’t going anywhere.

If Israel had an enemy that it could make peace with, then I might feel different. But it doesn’t, so Israel’s best interests dictate keeping the neighbors too economically weak to purchase expensive weapons, and to control as much territory as possible. I don’t begrudge any country that makes rational decisions in support of its own safety. I don’t even begrudge Israel’s influence on American foreign policy. I respect them for how well they do it.

Still, the bulk of my sympathies are with whatever group suffers the most, regardless of how much of the problem is their own damned fault. To feel otherwise would be inhuman. Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof.

Here’s your hypothetical question of the day: If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?

Comments

Iranians aren't Arabs. Not ethnically, not linguistically. They speak Farsi.

I bet many commentators in this thread have already pointed that out.

But antisemitism doesn't mean persecution of people of Semitic heritage. It means anti - semitism, where semitism is a series of very negative atributes some Europeans in the 19th century attributed to the genetics of Jews. It means persecution of Jews. Since there is no relevant hatred of "people of Semitic heritage" as a whole, there is not even need for a word to describe it. Hitler himself received the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini as his guest in Berlin in the 30's where the Mufti was given voice to declare:
"Kill the Jews - kill them with your hands, kill them with your teeth - this is well pleasing to Allah!"

Plus, if you check Semite on the American Heritage Dictionary, you'll see your definition of a Semite in the entry number 1, and the definition of Semite in antisemitism in the entry number 2. A Jew.

And finally, being something has never prevented anyone from hating others who are also that thing. And it doesn't even need to be "self hate". Every anti-semite knows a Jew who is just the opposite of the rest of Jews. It's like the infamous "he is Black, but he is nice". Lots of Latinos, for instance, hate Latinos. They think "ok, I'm a Latino, but I don't behave like Latinos". They understand they have transcended the defects of the group they are part of.

Examples:

Chris Rock:
"Everything white people don't like about black people, black people don't like about black people. It's like our own personal civil war."

Bobby Fischer:
Apparently thought that being a Jew involved some sort of allegiance to the group. Since he repelled his fellow Jews, he considered himself not Jewish despite apparently considering all other people born of Jewish parents Jews.

Yes, I totally agree with you. Palestine is only one Gandhi away from solving their problems but he'll need to be bulletproof... mostly from Hamas' Qassams, Hezbollah's Katyushas and the likes from their own camp.

You are right. Every country has a right to defend itself. Therefore it seems legitimate for an iraqi or a neighboring country like Iran to kill Americans (military) in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter, if the case is clear that their presence is "illegal" (which in fact is the case for Iraq and Afghanistan) and clearly such transgression of international laws are good reasons to fight blood thirsty politically correct murderers from the West. Many Americans I find are really not well-wishers of Iraq or its people, I think they could care less, and therefore the same should be expected when ugly events happen on your turf. The only folks who care about Iraq are the oily-money grubbing politicians and the blind US citizens that support their cause...which is systematically destroy muslim lands, and hope Mr. Anne Coulter gets his conversion wish true.

The fallacy of the logic that countries are "existential" threat and therefore should be attacked seems not only ridiculous, I would say comical, because it warrants every citizen of this world to prepare themselves and attack "Americans" or the self-deprecating "Jews" because otherwise ...well look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Japan (?), Cuba, ....there are prolly other propped up govts, but for now this seems a handful.

So....how exactly would the Left in this country overthrow the US Government without automatics, semi-automatics, and alot of those 'icky' .50 caliber "sniper rifles" and the "militia" training required to use them effectively? After all, the Left has spent 40 years disarming their inner city civilians, demonizing hunters and making automatics or larger weapons (and training) prohibitively expensive to acquire.

The only chance of a Domestic "regime change" occuring via violent means would be via the active military turning on the civilian leadership. But since our military (thanks to Leftists banning ROTC on their campi) is mostly conservative in bent they wouldn't necessarily be 'aghast' at us bombing Iran - them having nukes or not.

So a violent Leftist revolution against "the regime" doesn't stand a chance. Even if the 'violence' was directed against their ideological civilian counterparts, you know, those damn conservatives, they'd still be outgunned, outtrained, and outnumbered.

Which is why...most leftist agenda items are only advanced via courts, not the ballot box - they just don't have the numbers required for electoral or revolutionary victory.

Scott, regarding 'Sorry I Confused You', following the end of WWII a reporter asked Einstein how he felt about the stigma future generations of Germans would be forced to bear due to the crimes committed by the Nazis? Einstein replied without hesitation, "I would assume man's character differs much from one geographical location to another."

What's just as amazing is how America's educational system has outdone Hitler's propaganda machine by orders of magnitude, in that the vast majority of Americans believe the Nazis re-defined pure evil following the end of WWII. Try putting your mind around the fact that the Nazis actually came in a distant second, no where near the absence of empathy ehibited by the Americans during the 12 years we knew about the Nazi death and concentration camps and never lifted so much as a finger to prevent or stop what was going on inside.

Thus we find the American dream femains mostly a dream. And while Americans have been dreaming our republic will one day be the success we all take for granted, we failed to notice the reality that our republic failed long ago, and mostly unaware it was doomed from moment our Founding Fathers described the definitive evidence of failure; should society ever becomne a capitalist society.

Thought experiment. Let's say I shoot you in the head (I am not gonna, but let's pretend). Here comes the interesting part.

Your children and friends will claim that the murderer (me) used a handgun with a muzzle velocity of 6000 ft/s. Somebody will point out that the kind of handgun I have used has a muzzle velocity of 2500 ft/s. Neither of you will have proof to support your statements.

Will this in any way alter the fact that your Nazi ass was murdered?

If you get the correlation between your post and mine, good. If you don't (this would be my assumption), then you may carry on.

He was right the first time, as the "holocaust" was established by legal fiat rather than scientific rigor. This isn't merely my opinion. It's an objective fact that scientific rigor specifically requires the freedom to study and debate the issue from any side. However, one can not argue the side opposite of The Lobby in many countries, including yours soon enough. This is "history by judge."

Amazing! We can interpret the American Revolutionary war from the standpoint that Washington was a terrorist, but we can't ask how two crematoria turned 3000 Jews to pure ash (even the modern steel-constructed ones leave bone fragments) in only one location per day!

Lies can not stand the test of time. The jailed will be vindicated, and history will judge the liars.

Thanks for clearing up your "sarcasm" rant.
Your musings are still vile and infantile."............etc.
///////////////////////////////////////////////

You want vile?

All personal vows we are likely to make, all personal oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our personal vows, pledges and oaths be considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths.
Kol Nidre

If the US Gov't wasn't overthrown for lying about the reasons for invading Iraq, why would/should it be overthrown for invading Iran and lying about the reasons for doing so?

Also, this phenomenon of a certain kind of people not getting sarcasm and launching flamewars is truly international. Let me share a story with you.

Our PM made a controversial speech last year in a closed session (admitting that prior to the elections, his party lied (surprise, surprise!)). The speech leaked, riots ensued. A year later, a fairly balanced and well-known internet news portal, whose editors have a twisted sense of humor sometimes, posted an article, with the header: "comments of independent intellectuals on the leaked speech". All of the "independent intellectuals" had well-known ties to the left-wing government. All comments were praising the PM for speaking/admitting the truth. What do you think, how many commenters understood the sarcasm of calling these people independent, and how many started yelling "commie-liberal-pinko-redski-bolshevik" at the newsportal?

We also have a saying for the kinds of Chomsky "so smart he forgets to look down to avoid stepping into dogsh*t". I know it doesn't translate well, but maybe some of you can relate.

First the President tries to prevent an investigation of 9/11 and then he appoints Henry Kissinger knowing that Osama Bin Laden was a client of Kissinger Associates, and Henry Kissinger was on the bank’s international advisory board. The 9/11 families get Kissinger to step down from his position on the commission and then find out that new executive director, Phillip Zelikow, actually wrote the preemptive war strategy for Iraq among other things. Zelikow refuses to step down and then the President further cripples the investigation by preventing the majority of the commission from actually seeing the documents they need to investigate. Totally ridiculous obfuscation of justice.

"I mean, I'm a member of the commission. The President has said only a minority of the commission can see a minority of the documents and then they have to clear what they are going to say to the rest of the commission with the White House." Sen. Max Cleland, 9/11 Commissioner

This is to Stephen the big Chomsky supporter. Here's an idea that Chomsky never talks about. How about letting Scott think and reason for himself. He doesn't need to become a verse quoting sycophant of a minor intellectual figure who has found a niche with wannabe intellectuals who are willing to be bullies on the internet.

Any "thinking" man who can write this line "crimes of the Roosevelt administration, which assisted terrorist partisans attacking peaceful and sovereign Vichy France in 1940-41, and had thus declared war on Germany even before Pearl Harbor." is at best a minor intellectual or at worst a fraud of the nth degree.

The Vichy Government was sovereign on in the fact that they were hand picked by the Germans to take over the government, nor were they peaceful for they were shipping off Jews, Gypsies and anyone else on the Nazi hate list to concentration camps. And to call the Resistance Fighters terrorists is ignorance of a frightening proportion. I bet Chomsky was a big fan of Quisling as well. So Scott speak your mind, figure out what you want and need to say and say it. Don't just be like Stephen and show your intelligence or lack of by just saying "Chomsky, Chomsky, Chomsky"

Great posts Scott. Those who are offended should take a deep breath and let more oxygen in -- that what you read may disturb you is good because the words will stay with you long after you walk away from the keyboard. Regardless of what you think about some of the questions he ducked, Ahmadinejad is a good speaker. And for those assholes that don't know better, Arabs are a semitic people too.

Oh, do you SEE them, Mr. Adams? Do you SEE these patterns for yourself, or is it what happens to be on the news? For christ sake, after SEEING one utterly disastrous invasion and destruction of an entire country by the US, you think you SEE the reason for another illegal, pre-emptive invasion. I'm utterly disgusted by your willingness to engage in the rhetoric that lays groundwork for war. War is indiscriminant destruction. Nothing more. And you, for engaging in this kind of speculative garbage, are its messenger and advocate, concocting lists of reasons for bombing the hell out of people, as long as it's not near you.

And after re-reading and thinking about this comment, I would whole-heartedly say this to your face before spitting on the ground before you. Your willingness to advocate for more violence as the ethos of US foreign policy puts you squarely in the jackass category.

I must admit, it took until the last paragraph before I was sure of the sarcastic nature of yesterday's post. Having said that, I am sure there were a number of people who were seeing too much red by then to pick that up.

While I agree with some and disagree with other parts of what you said, I think the major points are these:

1. These problems are immensely complex, and we get nowhere by trying to simplify them so people who don't want to make an effort can understand them.
2. We also get nowhere by insulting our enemies (or friends) or by demonizing them. That only breeds contempt on both sides. While I applaud Columbia U for letting Ahmadinejad speak, the president of Columbia U created an attitude of resentment by insulting him at the outset. When that happens, almost everybody quit listening to everybody else.

We will never change the attitudes or beliefs of others by beating them with a stick. It is only through open dialogue thatwe begin to understand, and eventually respect, each other's views.

Under the topic of "Israel’s actions in pursuit of its self-interest," do you include leaving cluster bombs all over farmers' fields in southern Lebanon to remind people forever that you are inhumane monsters? Do you include taking people's land and possessions at gunpoint? Do you include blatant attacks on civilians? Do you include arbitrary arrests, laws forbidding Palestinians from driving in their own country, laws forbidding visits to family, behavior that goes beyond anything in the Jim Crow laws? When has military force ever beaten a society into total submission? The Afrikaaners couldn't do it to the locals. The Serbs couldn't do it to the Kosovars. The Chinese haven't been able to do it to the Tibetans. We certainly haven't done it to the Iraqis. The soviets never were able to do it to anyone. Why do you think that the Israelis can do it to the Palestinians?

When ever our political leaders operate outside the law (like starting an undeclared war), illegally tap our phones, allow us to be brutalized by law enforcement, monitor what we read on the net, monitor what we read at the libraries, detain us without giving reason or representation and spend our tax money foolishly, we have every right to change our government.

"If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?"
Yes. Just like we should be doing now in the equivalent situation.

>>>
I believe that if Iran is in fact helping Iraqi insurgents harm Americans, it’s an act of war, and a legitimate reason for attacking Iran in some fashion.
<<<

PLEASE clarify Scott:
Do you also believe that the US helping (by suppling money, weapons) Israel harm Palestinans is an act of war, and that this is a legitimate reason for the Palestinians to attack the US?
(Seems like an almost perfect analogy)